Gharavu-Nakhjavani v Pelagias

The appeal was allowed and the taking of the account was remitted to a full-time Master other than the Deputy Master who had dealt with it. Objections were generally confined to those made in writing, with a limited procedure for formulating any oral objection concerning expenditure after 1 May 1998. The evidence was likewise controlled, while allowing specified opportunities for further evidence and cross-examination. Alternative dispute resolution was directed. The appellant recovered the costs of the appeal on the standard basis; the costs of the earlier account were reserved.

The claimant appealed in proceedings concerning the taking of an account before the High Court, Chancery Division, Deputy Master Weir. Following judgment and submissions on consequential directions, the Court of Appeal determined the appropriate arrangements for remitting and managing the account, including the scope of objections, the evidence and cross-examination permitted, alternative dispute resolution, and the costs of the appeal.

Appeal allowed. The account was remitted to a full-time Master of the Chancery Division other than Deputy Master Weir.

1. The objections before the Master were limited to those already made in writing. The claimant could formulate in writing any oral objection actually made to Deputy Master Weir concerning expenditure after 1 May 1998 and submit it to the defendant for agreement. If the parties could not agree whether such an objection had been made, the issue was to be referred to a Master.
2. Unless the court permitted otherwise, the evidence concerning the remitted account was to be the evidence previously before Deputy Master Weir. If the defendant wished to rely on Mr Tsielepsis's evidence, he had to serve a witness statement at least two months before the account was taken. The appellant could cross-examine him, subject to notice, and reply to that evidence within one month.
3. The parties could apply to the Master for cross-examination of contractors whose statements were in the bundle and of Mr Pelagias. Any further evidence by Mr Pelagias was to concern new material, subject to the Master's directions.
4. An alternative dispute resolution order was made in the form identified by the court. The parties were to agree dates, with unresolved arrangements to be referred to the Case Management Conference within the specified time limit.
5. The appellant, having succeeded on the appeal, was awarded the appeal costs on the standard basis. The correspondence and offers shown did not justify indemnity costs. The costs of taking the account before Deputy Master Weir were reserved to the Master dealing with the remittal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) allowed the appeal and remitted the account to a full-time Master other than Deputy Master Weir.
• High Court, Chancery Division proceedings concerning the taking of the account had been before Deputy Master Weir.